tv [untitled] June 13, 2014 6:30am-7:01am PDT
department of real estate in the city. >> not necessarily the mayor's office -- >> housing successor, that's affordable housing. >> this one is commercial. the other one last question, and i think it's for mr. spydy. you said something about the roof blend. can you elaborate on that? >> the roof plan is designed to accommodate [inaudible] which are solar panels which will offset the expenses of the building so to maximize the reductions to operating costs we've designed it in a manner that it will take up as much of that plan a ccommodating other things, but we're really looking to maximize the vast
majority of the roof for solar panels. >> so that it could somehow help lower the operating costs of -- >> specificly for that -- one way to look at items of that nature is that we're essentially paying down operating costs over a period of time upfront. >> i want to go back to -- i want to get a sense -- how much are they paying for rent now for -- let's say miss [inaudible] because she's the one who has a nature problem -- she needs a large space to accommodate her beautiful collection, which i agree should somehow be maintained and supported and continue the history of san francisco. so without -- i -- >> the lowest rent is below 40 cents, i think. 39 cents is the actual lowest,
which is a bit of an outlier. the highest is -- >> can you convert that to -- >> well, depends on the size -- >> the average size. >> well, studios range from 110 square feet to 3,000. it's really hard to average. >> at 500 square feet you're talking about [inaudible]. >> and transferring to the new location which will have an increase of -- >> [inaudible]. >> because that's increase, right? >> correct. >> it's roughly moved to -- >> okay. thank you. >> one second. we've asked specifically about your [inaudible] willing to share [inaudible].
>> what is the square footage? >> [inaudible]. >> thank you for supplying that information. >> thank you. >> did you have other -- >> that was my last question. thank you. >> i have a couple and then of course if anybody else has continued questions. okay. i'm going to start off by saying i don't know that i can support a decision on schematic design today and i'll ask my questions and tell you why. the first one is has been
through a series of negotiations with the community including the cac and star and other members. my first question is it sounds like there are still some artists who we're working to accommodate. we have an artist here who says your cell phone bill says she needs 2500 square feet, but i don't see any studios in the current schematic design that are any bigger than 1500 square feet. is there still work being done to move space around to accommodate different artists and what they may or may not be able to afford? >> so answering specifically that question about that space and a building that's big enough to accommodate, yes, there is. it's a configuration of three spaces on the plaza level. all three of them have the number 201, if i'm correct, and
together they have 2500 square feet. >> already that is a change to schematic design. please, thank you, yes. already that is a change to the schematic design. if we were to approve that today -- no? explain to me why i'm wrong. >> we've worked -- loraina is by far the biggest user on site so we've worked specifically with her to find a configuration that accommodated her needs and we've provided three or four different options on different floors. some of her needs included roll up doors because she has plaster deliveries that require the use of a form lift. she requires the use of water so we agreed to include water in her space which is a unique
condition throughout the entire building. and throughout the course of those conversations, we were told that the 2500 square feet that we were providing was consistent with her needs and -- >> ma'am, i'm going to have to ask you to leave the room if you continue to interrupt. i can't listen to two people at the same time. thank you very much. please continue. >> the currently configured space we were told was both affordable and satisfactory from her needs. >> i don't want to focus on one circumstance because it gets to my larger question. i'm not sure to adjudicate the particular issue of one tenant being able to be accommodated. i was using that as an example and this is why i cannot listen to two people at the same time. i'm trying to get to, is there more work to be done in that area? and again, if it helps, let's forget about that circumstance
because i think that that's -- i don't want that to be a fire brand against my general question, which is are we still trying to accommodate other people within the schematic design. >> so we know that we can accommodate everyone within the building and up until a couple of weeks ago the architect has worked on adjusting spaces for artists to make sure everyone can fit based on the most recent information. so we know that the building envelope works for the current situation, for all 130 studios for all 140 artists. what we've asked lenoir to give us is a drop dead date when the floor plans need to be locked in. if there's any additional
artist ists who want to come forward, we want to make sure we can make that tweak, but in general, the design is complete. >> well, and i think to further that point, we went through the additional step of going back and speaking to the artists, as many as would respond. i think we got to 70 percent or so of people by, you know, leaving voicemails, emails, knocking on door, leaving fliers to make sure that what we were providing in fact was what they were asking was both affordable and could accommodate the needs of their work space. the plans as they exist today reflect the results of that survey. the work that ivi has done in terms of taking that information and extrapolating that into a floor plan we've gotten down to -- i think it
was roughly 95, 97 percent of studios. we're getting square footage that was within plus or minus 10 percent of their requested space. >> okay. so i think you've answered my question. the answer is, i mean, this design is for -- in terms of, like, in my head, if we're approving something and that's what's going to be built, that's not necessarily the case if someone came to you tomorrow and said i can't afford 300, that's what i put in the survey, but i did the numbers and i can really only afford 200. that means another studio is 400 and then one is -- you know, i don't respond to that. sorry. >> it's not accurate. >> okay. so if that's not accurate, what is? i think i just heard people saying this design could still be changed if someone came tomorrow and said -- >> i think the design in general in perpetuity will be
able to accommodate flexibility. if someone came in in five years and said i want 1,000 square feet, could you knock down this wall, that could be accommodated. what the current floor plans can accommodate are the specific needs that people have requested within the building and have said they can afford. >> thank you. so then i'll get to my next question. it's about continued on -- i'm cognizant that we are running over time and i think that the film commission is okay starting late. my next question is about the studio sizes. i see a number here that are sub 200 square feet and that seems really small to me and i know there are a number of artists who already share space in the current facilities. can we -- i know it's been years and a lot of back and forth and hundreds of meetings. can we speak to the fact if
there was any attempt to get creative with how you configure the space. you can knock down wall, someone can move out, but for right now, i see a lot of units that are tiny and my question is, was there any thought given to combining some of those and having the star board or whoever's going to be the management team work on how to share space? again, remember nobody lives in this building. it's working space for artists. >> yes, so we have worked on that. before our survey that highlighted the affordability issues, there were no spaces below 200 square feet. but as artists came back to us with affordability concerns, we cut up spaces so artists could afford. we've also addressed the question of sharing spaces and whether or not that would be an
option, but for many artists who have been out there for a long time, and many of the artists with small studios have actually been there a very long -- are older, privacy is very important to them. so even though we try to address that, we try to come up with creative solutions where people put share space, semiprivate spaces where there would be partitions, but what we've heard back is that privacy is really important and that the star board to represent the artists would prefer that everyone be accommodated at this small scale at the moment, and later -- if bigger studio sizes are needed. ed, walls can be knocked down, but at the onset, the ask was to replicate the situation as closely as possible. >> okay. and follow up question to that,
in terms of the general market -- i understand it's crazy town out there in terms of artists and other professionals who are self employed and work in the not most profitable industries. what is the general market for artist size out there? i'm thinking you have an artist who has agreed to take 175 square feet and they go into that space and five or six years down the road they decide they think it's a raw deal, they're done with it, they're moving to richmond or west oakland or wherever they can find a space. who is taking 175 square feet? is that something that's comparable to anywhere else anywhere? >> yes. we have brought up that question as well and talked with star and david tujen who is the lands landlord for building 101 and he has
confirmed small spaces like this can rent. there was such pressure on artists and spaces are so unaffordable and especially people who can afford it, like, need small spaces so they can have a studio at all. we are very confident that those spaces will be rented. there is no vacancy on the shipyard. there is a long wait list. every space will be rented. >> i think something to consider is there are artists paying more than $1.10 per square foot right now and artists asking for more space. at the end of the day i think looking into the future, there are people who want smaller spaces for affordability reasons, or because they're writers. i think the building in its current configuration really can accommodate wide slots of people and, you know -- >> okay. thanks.
sorry, i do have just one more question. i really wish that there was a way for us to see the property management plan as it relates to the artist studio in terms of who's going to manage it and how it'll be transferred before approving the schematic design. we talked about the rent stabilization fund, but it would probably be the responsibility of whatever management team is in in charge of the building at the end of the day. and i know that the solar roofs will contribute 20 to 30k to that but that's not a lot in the scheme of things in terms of being able to provide as much assistance as people might need. i'd like to hear what other conversation have been had about the rent stabilization funds. fund. to me it seems like it's not something that can be supported
100 percent by philanthropy or something like that. i've been here eight years, and what has happened there, if anything? >> so the rent stabilization that you fund that you call it, i'm not sure how star would call it, would be something based on their fund raising effort. there is no additional subsidy that would be coming from oci because we are not in a position to do that. star stepping in and taking that on was basically trying to fill that void and the need and we can be supportive of that and help with fund raising, but we don't have the means to directly -- >> oh no, i'm not asking about that. i recognize, even though it's been a number of years, that as of today, if we had to transfer everything today, say the disillusion and redevelopment
worked out differently. star would not be in authority to say anything about the artist building because they're not the manager of that building. maybe they could be as part of the future plan for transfer, but that's not the case for today. what i'm getting at is what has been the discussion about how the affordability of these studios as currently designed in terms of their space requirements would be maintained other than saying star is maybe on top of that? because if we have to transfer it tomorrow, star frankly doesn't have an authority to come and say we're managing the rent stabilization fund. it just wouldn't be there. >> the rent stabilization fund is kind of, like, effort that's done by star so i would say -- since star's mission is to maintain artist studios, it doesn't necessarily link who
actually manages the building. they could provide grants to artists. in our conversation about the management structure and those conversations are nowhere close to being completed. we acknowledge that has always been the plan for the artist community through star to have a very active roll. how exactly that would look like, we don't know yet and we need to talk to the department. we want to look at, like, structures that make sense from all kind of aspects, legally, logistically on a day-to-day basis, but it's absolutely intent to make sure the artists coming through star plays a very active roll. role. >> and last one. i know commissioner mondejar asked you this one. getting back to her question about affordability and talking about the rent stabilization and star making their efforts.
say they efforts fall through, they aren't able to figure out some sort of social enter prize, they go the philanthropic route. >> so i'll try to answer the question. the last thing you said was artists who are in small studios basically say they relied on the funds to help them. >> that's my question. >> that would actually not be the case because the artist for which the small studios have
been created are artist who said provide me a small studio and i can afford to move into the building. it's artists who have large spaces and haven't indicated they are able or willing to downsize that are in the situation where they say i don't want to downsize, but i still can't afford it. those small spaces have been created with those artists in mind and they can afford it. >> one thing that's been considered as we go forward -- i think we're just talking about really just a small handful of people, in the five to six range, but going forward, those people can also be at the forefront of the list as spaces become available in the neighboring property as well and there's also been an indication of interest from some people within building 101 that they may want to move or swap spaces into the newer building because of the various amenities going into it. those are also options that are
on the table for artists as we approach the move in date. >> can i add one more comment? >> yeah. >> i mean, i just wanted to add that we will continue to work on creative solutions to address needs as they arise, but at the same time, we want to make sure that this building can be available and online and build and completed when parts will be transferred. and so from that perspective, it's kinds of, like, lenoir has calculated back when they need to start construction. that's why we are here today. and questions like management structure that are not directly linked to the schematic design are still being worked on. a: i >> i will say we have had conversations through the city,
the city, like many properties identified on our property management plan would own the fee title to the land much like the city to the mayor's office of housing for affordable housing developments, but there are a variety of mechanisms and structures we have been exploring with legal, our consultant team, including cooperative structures, processes of self determination. this is an artist building, there are similar models around the bay to look to in terms of a cooperative struck which you structures now the city as the sea title landholder. again, there is opportunities for star artists, qualified property management terms to
qualify to joint venture to join a non profit to joint venture and we are exploring all these opportunities and would welcome your feedback and be happy to present additional information in that regard. and certainly, in terms of overall stabilization as we know, the board of supervisors adopted on tuesday, two sources of non profit stabilization, 2 million specifically for generalized non profits and there's a process and procedural manual in place and that's utilizing the city funds and rules and mechanisms are in place for artists non profits citywide. and then through the city's arts commission, approximately 2.5 million was, i believe, again, passed by the board just recently in the last week for artists stabilization specific non profit artist related stabilization and to the extent
that there are other sources citywide, foundation, private with the leadership of star and others that would not prevent -- our staff is here to facilitate a number of those connections and discussions. >> okay. i think my concern about approving the schematic design was to make sure none of those other concerns -- that's what all my questions were about, that none of those other concerns would i know we are going to have to look at the relocation plan and then the management plan will be part of our overall prp in terms of how the site will be transferred to the city and how it will be managed.
my only -- i have to say, it's not even a question, i'm a little concerned about counting the garage as part of the parking, because i believe it's parcel b on there so that's later so things could be happening where it's not happened. >> well, but the current parking plan, even without the [inaudible] inclusion can accommodate a, far and above what the planning requirement would be and above what exists today. >> that's what i'm trying to say. it's not even a question. i just get concerned about that kind of thing because people could point to that and say oh, you said there's going to be 200 something parking spaces and lacer on somebody decides they don't want a parking garage in there. comment, not a question. i'd like to entertain a motion unless we have questions or comments.
continuing. >> i will move that we approve the schematic designs for the artist's studios. >> i'll second. >> madam secretary, please call the role. roll. >> commissioner ellington. >> yes. >> commissioner mondejar. >> yes. >> commissioner singh. >> yes. >> commissioner [inaudible]. >> johnson. >> no. >> the vote is three is, two nays. thank you very much, that passes. >> the next agenda items have 5g and e which will be called together with a single staff presentation. item 5g, adoption of a ordinance levying the taxes [inaudible] and san francisco,
community [inaudible] district number 7 [inaudible] improvements and rescinding ordinance number 12008 [inaudible]. action 5e adoption of an ordinance levying special taxes within the redevelopment say general say in san francisco, community facilities district in your opinion 8, phase one maintenance and rescinding ordinance number 2-2008 [inaudible] project area discussion ordinance number 2-2014. the commission as the legislative body for the district introduced the ordinances on may 6, 2014 to levy the special tax for facility district number #7b according to the second amended and stated rate and apportionment of special tax and for community facilities issued number 8 according to
the rate and method of special tax. madam director. >> thank you madam secretary. commissioners, as you know, there are a number of actions, change proceedings to community district 7 and 8, the infrastructure and maintenance districts specifically. this is for a dongs as was specified in the revised agenda and revised packets and available for for the public. we will take a series of steps and this is the first significant step before all funds are due in september so we have a few more of these proceedings left to go. with that, i'd like to ask [inaudible] who's the hunters point shipyard project manager to present these items. >> thank you. good afternoon chair johnson. today the commission is
considering adopting ordinances to levy special taxes for the phase shipyard facilities districts, cfds 7 and 8. this is the second reading of these ordinances. that is how we'll proceed today. the commission will provide this waiver with moves to adopt the ordinances. the ordinances before you today had a typographical error and have been revised to reflect the fact that you'd be adopting the ordinances today through the second reading. the revised ordinances were recirculated and agenda was reposted in accordance with the brown act. one of the important financing sources of the hunters point shipyard is [inaudible] commission is undertaking beginning with the start of the change proceedings in april 1,
2014 and it'll enable us to refinance is cfd 7 variable rate bonds issued in 2005. under cfd 7 nearly [inaudible] and parks construction in 2005 for phase one of the shipyard. in approve a contract for bond counsel services as well as a contract for special tax advice for good win consulting. on april 15